Lecture Title: Components of crime
Date: 01/10
Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defences = Criminal Liability
Actus Guilty act
reus Need proof of: voluntary act and guilty act cause a particular result to cause criminal harm
Voluntary ● Must commit an act and it must be voluntary
act ● Not voluntary:
○ Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74
○ Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) The Times, 28 March
Omission liability:
● French Good samaritan law - failure to move and act can make you criminally liable
● Duty to act - The defendant has a duty to act reasonably to prevent harm to avoid
criminal liability
○ Based on relationship
■ Parent to child
● Gibbons and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
● Sheppard (1862) Le & Ca 147
■ Married couples
● Hood [2004] 1 Cr App R 431
○ Assumed duties
■ Duty of care
● Instan [1893] 1 QB 45
● Stone and Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
● Barrass [2011] EWCA Crim 2629
■ If the defendant heads on the path of providing care they are under a
duty to act to prevent serious harm to the victim
○ Creation of a dangerous situation
■ Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
● Starting the fire and not attempting to put it out
● Miller was the cause of the dangerous situation
■ Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
● Supplied heroine to her sister
● Easier to find mother and daughter relationship but harder to find
for the half sister
● Sister was an indirect cause by supplying the drugs
○ Expansion of the duty to act?
■ Lewin v CPS [2002] EWHC 1049
● No relationship and no assumed duty so was not prosecuted
■ Bowditch (2017)
● Did nothing and watched a young girl he met 3 hours earlier
drown while intoxicated. Pleaded guilty so no trial so don’t
actually know what the duty to act was - 5.5 years in prison
■ Ruffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122
● tried reviving V and failed and was charged. Tells you to not even
bother helping
○ Only be prosecuted on omission if there is a duty to act
Causation D’s actions must have caused the result i.e D shoots V in the heart and V dies
Two elements:
● Factual causation
○ Must have factually caused the actions
○ Sine qua non = ‘but for’ test
■ White [1910] 2 KB 124
○ Doesn’t have to be the sole cause
■ Benge (1846) 2 Car & Kir 230
● Legal causation
○ D’s actions are considered legally blameworthy as to give rise to criminal liability
Date: 01/10
Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defences = Criminal Liability
Actus Guilty act
reus Need proof of: voluntary act and guilty act cause a particular result to cause criminal harm
Voluntary ● Must commit an act and it must be voluntary
act ● Not voluntary:
○ Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74
○ Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) The Times, 28 March
Omission liability:
● French Good samaritan law - failure to move and act can make you criminally liable
● Duty to act - The defendant has a duty to act reasonably to prevent harm to avoid
criminal liability
○ Based on relationship
■ Parent to child
● Gibbons and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
● Sheppard (1862) Le & Ca 147
■ Married couples
● Hood [2004] 1 Cr App R 431
○ Assumed duties
■ Duty of care
● Instan [1893] 1 QB 45
● Stone and Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
● Barrass [2011] EWCA Crim 2629
■ If the defendant heads on the path of providing care they are under a
duty to act to prevent serious harm to the victim
○ Creation of a dangerous situation
■ Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
● Starting the fire and not attempting to put it out
● Miller was the cause of the dangerous situation
■ Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
● Supplied heroine to her sister
● Easier to find mother and daughter relationship but harder to find
for the half sister
● Sister was an indirect cause by supplying the drugs
○ Expansion of the duty to act?
■ Lewin v CPS [2002] EWHC 1049
● No relationship and no assumed duty so was not prosecuted
■ Bowditch (2017)
● Did nothing and watched a young girl he met 3 hours earlier
drown while intoxicated. Pleaded guilty so no trial so don’t
actually know what the duty to act was - 5.5 years in prison
■ Ruffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122
● tried reviving V and failed and was charged. Tells you to not even
bother helping
○ Only be prosecuted on omission if there is a duty to act
Causation D’s actions must have caused the result i.e D shoots V in the heart and V dies
Two elements:
● Factual causation
○ Must have factually caused the actions
○ Sine qua non = ‘but for’ test
■ White [1910] 2 KB 124
○ Doesn’t have to be the sole cause
■ Benge (1846) 2 Car & Kir 230
● Legal causation
○ D’s actions are considered legally blameworthy as to give rise to criminal liability
